Jump to content

The inside of the 50/1.2 Ai-S and potential CPU


Guest stenrasmussen

Recommended Posts

Guest rvink

Eric - I assume you are describing your AI 50/1.2? I compared my AI 55/1.2 and AIS 50/1.2, along with some pictures of the AI 50/1.2 I found on ebay...

 

AI 55/1.2

- bayonet mount with flat surface (unique feature of early 1.2 lenses)

- 5 bayonet screws in usual position

- rear optical cell with obvious cut-out visible from rear and front (looking through lens with aperture wide open)

- mount has cut-through for aperture lever

 

AI 50/1.2

- bayonet mount with flat surface

- 3 bayonet screws in standard position (12, 4, 8 o'clock positions)

- rear optical cell with cut-out (hard to judge size from ebay pictures, but looks similar to AIS 50/1.2...)

- mount has cut-through for aperture lever

 

AI-S 50/1.2

- bayonet mount with stepped surface, bayonet screws on inner recessed portion (same as other Nikkors)

- 3 bayonet screws

- rear optical cell appears circular when looking from rear, but slight cut-out visible when held at an angle, cut-out visible when looking from the front.

- mount has cut-through for aperture lever

 

 

Not necessarily, the extra glass on the Ai lens may well be unused - as long as the lens material and surface curves are the same, the optical formula will be the same. 

Vignetting depends on more than just the size of the rear element. Again, the AIS (ie the smaller rear element) shows less vignetting than AI.

There is no difference in light transmission by the 50/1.2 versions. Also, they both are able to render perfectly circular out-of-focus blurs at f/1.2 to indicate the exit pupil is not obscured.

 

Something does not add up here:

 

If the AIS 50/1.2 has the same optics as the AI version but the rear cell has simply been reduced in diameter (as dslater suggests), then the AIS version must have greater vignetting than the AI, because light rays to the corner are truncated by the smaller element. In these fast lenses every square mm of glass is used, especially towards the corners of the image.

 

If the AIS 50/1.2 shows less vignetting than the AI 50/1.2 - in spite of the smaller rear element - the light transmission cannot be the same. Also it must mean it has a different optical design, which would be very surprising to me, as I mentioned earlier.

 

???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nfoto

For now, be assured the two 50/1.2 versions *are* different. And they transmit the same.

There is no contradiction here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes :)  And finally got a fully working Nikkor on my Leica M8!

 

Here is a close up of an OOF highlight you can see that the outline is formed at the surface of the lens element. the curved arm is not visible... a bit of redesign and I could maybe eliminate the shadow effect from the base of the arm..

 

attachicon.gifL1020106crop.jpg

 

I was able to restore the blur circles completely.

 

I relocated the two screws and shortened the range finder arm in the lens, it's now about 2 mm from the rear element and with a concave chamfering the blur circles clears :) Very happy about this! since this is the main purpose of this lens, large blur circles wide open.

 

The small cut out for the camera aperture arm can be seen at 2 o'clock until 7 o'clock...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stenrasmussen

Project starting to take shape...

Drilled holes in the flange, reduced flange thickness to 0.3mm, enlarged holes to make sure pins don't touch metal, covered the holes + smeared thin layer of epoxy on the inside of the flange to ensure no electric shortcuts.

Slimmed down the Dandelion chip to minimise removal of glass from the lens cell. Next step will be to grind the rear end side of the lens cell to make room for the Dandelion. As opposed to Erik I am not skilled in these operations so there is still the risk I might ruin the whole lens  :sarcastic:

post-519-0-30748900-1365271964_thumb.jpg

post-519-0-96873700-1365271971_thumb.jpg

post-519-0-28711900-1365271979_thumb.jpg

post-519-0-34983800-1365272549_thumb.jpg

Edited by stenrasmussen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stenrasmussen

Thanks Erik!

Glass grinder...slowly...

And I wonder if I took too much off the back of the Dandy as the rear end of the pins are visible..?

I will probably mend another Dandy and leave the back ungrinded. Looks like there is enough room - just like you managed Erik.

I wrapped electrical tape around the rear part of the lens cell in order to seal off the space between the two rear elements.

 

post-519-0-74739700-1365276487_thumb.jpg

post-519-0-63433000-1365276504_thumb.jpg

post-519-0-64194100-1365276511_thumb.jpg

post-519-0-84926800-1365276519_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just sanded of a few 1/10mm off the rear of the dandelion and rounded the corners to make the glass cut as short as possible.

 

I do think you need to remove more of the front of the next Dandelion though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stenrasmussen

Just started modifying another dandelion and it turns out the CPU sits vertical (base and top parallell to the pins' long axis). The previous sample (in the pics above) has the CPU oriented 90 degrees to this.

Still think it is possible to get enough off to clear the glass.

I remove as much as possible and with the ultra thin flange it ought to work.

Edited by stenrasmussen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stenrasmussen

Well, there is at least *some* glass remaining .... Good on you

 

Hee, hee...there is a fine line between glass and no glass in this case. As Erik said, careful sanding is paramount. It does chip easily!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Use the finest grain on the sander, a little late now...

 

The ones I have seen has had the CPU in the same plane as the pins centerline.

 

Please post images of both for reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stenrasmussen

I must be tired cause the two of the Dandies are identical  :dontknow:

I've modified it now and there is enough clearance. 

Will finsih task tomorrow. Now some wine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stenrasmussen

I'm sure that could be arranged :) It's been too long, late this summer maybe.

Sounds like a plan! Will hopefully meet up with Mr. Bear and Andrea late May so will get a dose of Nikongearians then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

Sten, you are literally walking on eggshells!  Knock on wood instead of eggshells!

"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

http://www.flickr.com/photos/akiraphoto/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stenrasmussen

Sten, you are literally walking on eggshells!  Knock on wood instead of eggshells!

 

Well, you know Akira...wanna make an omelette eggs have to be broken. But in this case the eggshells are just about tough enough to take the wear 'n tear...I hope  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stenrasmussen

The Dandy is in and focus and all works. BUT, there is something wrong with the chip. It lets me programme it but the camera won't take notice of it. Have ordered a couple of new ones. Overall I am quite pleased that the process came out on the right side of the starting line. Meanwhile I'll do my 105/2.5 with a real chip from the Bear. I also have a spare chip (initially meant for the 50/1.2) which I will have to ask Bjørn to re-programme for me in May when we meet up. Should be fun to put it in the Rodenstock 100/1.6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep us updated Sten!

 

Did you try to reset the Dandelion, and start over, I had to do that once...

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stenrasmussen

Thanks for the wake up call Erik! It just occured to me I totally forgot to set the minimum aperture...was too eager perhaps and therefore suffered MBD (maximal brain dysfunction)  :tease:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • Michael Erlewine
      By Michael Erlewine
      The Printing Nikkors: Images and Range
       
      The Nikon industrial Printing Nikkors are exemplary and highly corrected lenses, but for whom? Who wants to use them because, for the most part, they are restricted to a particular narrow field of view. There not only is no infinity available, but in general they are highly restricted as far as view. 
       
      Worse (much worse) is that the higher the f/stop, the less sharpness and resolution. So, we can’t just dial up the f/stop to f/11 or f/16 and expect spectacular results. The Printing Nikkors are optimized wide open or close to it.. They may be better than ordinary lenses, but the sharpness and resolution are confined to the lens either wide-open or nearly so. And that is a very thin depth of field. Who uses that?
       
      And so, there is no sweet spot for standard photography unless... and here it comes, we stack focus. That’s where these lenses come into their own and earn their high prices, at least in my book. Using focus stacking, we can paint on focus just where we want it, a razor-thin layer at a time.
       
      Yet, even for focus stackers, the reproduction rate for most is very limited in range. It’s a kind of “take it or leave it” proposition, i.e. use this limited field of view or forget about it. Most Printing Nikkors only come alive on a bellows system, some work only well on a focus rail and none work well on the camera itself without a rail or a small helicoid. There is no native helicoid or way to focus other than the rail, which as focus stackers know, is the least preferred way to stack focus.
       
      Why do I bother with these lenses and invest hard-earned cash in finding them? That’s a good question, but the answer is: I like the quality in these lenses and I only wish that kind of correction was the standard in lenses. The closest I come are the Zeiss Otus lenses, (and the Zeiss 135mm) which I consider an Otus.
       
      With the above in mind, let’s look at the main Printing Nikkors (95mm, 105mm, and 150mm) and see what their field of view IS like. Forget about macro range and above. These lenses can go there, but I don’t. Someone else can check that out.
       
      The 95mm PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/3x~1/1.5x, while the 105mm PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/1.5x~1.5x, and the 150 PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/x. Other than there, we are going outside their optimum qualities at our own risk IQ-wise.
       
      Since I don’t usually do macro, but rather close-up photography, that tells me that the PC 95 is going to be the most useful (all around) for me. It does not mean that the others (or the 95mm) don’t go higher in f/stops, but that they don’t go higher at their sharpest. 
       
      What’s the point of having a $3K lens if I am not going to be able to shoot at the range I want to shoot at and get top IQ? Unless I want to stack focus, I am kind of limited to “arty” photos, ones with just a hint of field depth. It’s nice, but for only once in a while.
       
      The 95mm PN can be used mounted directly to my Nikon D850, provided that camera is mounted on a focus fail. I could also add a very small helicoid to the lens, but the moment I do that I immediately lose some of what I most need, range. This lens is designed for something like 1:2 magnification. I find the 95mm very sharp, easy to use, and probably gives me the best bang for the buck, so to speak.
       
      The PN 95mm has 45mm outer threads. The lens mount M45 x 0.75 and there are 12 blades.
       
      The 105mm PN pretty much has to be on a bellows or view camera and, even then, the range is limited to about one view and (for my work) that is not even at its sharpest.
       
      The PN 105mm has 43mm filter threads and the lens mount is M45 x 0.75. There are 12 blades.
      There are two PN 150s (actually three), but the one not mentioned here follows the lead of the PN 150, 2nd version, and I don’t have it.
      The 150mm PNs are advertised for 1X magnification range, but it will work wider, but of course at a loss in IQ I would imagine.
       
      The PN 150mm (first version) has front and rear threads of 62mm. I’m not an expert, but this earlier version of the 150mm has an additional ring that compensates for the magnification, insuring sharper images over a wider range of magnification. This is perhaps what makes this version the most useful to me. It actually works and is kind of amazing to watch. You just dial it in and it is sharper.
       
      And the PN 150 (version 2) has a filter thread of 58mm and 12 blades. It can’t go much above f/4.5 and not lose quality. It does not have the extra ring to compensate for magnification.
      As far as mounting the Printing Nikkors to the Nikon-F mount, it is not difficult, but you do have to match up adapters. I have enough laying around here to mix and match until they all are ready to go. 
       
      I post here two stacked photos for each of the four Printing Nikkors I have. These photos give you a rough idea of the kind of reproduction-ratio that I can get with these lenses. I am sure if you want to go 1:1 and above, you would with some get better results. However, I do the best I can with what I have.
       
      Below are shown two sets of four images, the first four are simple stacks of 2 layers, one each focused around the center of each flower. This lets you see each lens with little stacking. However, these are at f/11, which is the opposite end of where the lens is sharp. It still is pretty good.
       
      The second four images are all stacked liberally. They will show you what a stacked image looks like with each lens.
       
      I’m not sure what you will get out of these, but you can take a look. Meanwhile, I continue checking out these interesting (to me) lenses, the Printing Nikkors.
      I will have to post the other four images in a second post. Won't fit.
       
       








    • Michael Erlewine
      By Michael Erlewine
      The Nikon industrial Printing Nikkors are exemplary and highly corrected lenses, but for whom? Who wants to use them because, for the most part, they are restricted to a particular narrow field of view. There not only is no infinity available, but in general they are highly restricted as far as view. 
       
      Worse (much worse) is that the higher the f/stop, the less sharpness and resolution. So, we can’t just dial up the f/stop to f/11 or f/16 and expect spectacular results. The Printing Nikkors are optimized wide open or close to it.. They may be better than ordinary lenses, but the sharpness and resolution are confined to the lens either wide-open or nearly so. And that is a very thin depth of field. Who uses that?
       
      And so, there is no sweet spot for standard photography unless... and here it comes, we stack focus. That’s where these lenses come into their own and earn their high prices, at least in my book. Using focus stacking, we can paint on focus just where we want it, a razor-thin layer at a time.
       
      Yet, even for focus stackers, the reproduction rate for most is very limited in range. It’s a kind of “take it or leave it” proposition, i.e. use this limited field of view or forget about it. Most Printing Nikkors only come alive on a bellows system, some work only well on a focus rail and none work well on the camera itself without a rail or a small helicoid. There is no native helicoid or way to focus other than the rail, which as focus stackers know, is the least preferred way to stack focus.
       
      Why do I bother with these lenses and invest hard-earned cash in finding them? That’s a good question, but the answer is: I like the quality in these lenses and I only wish that kind of correction was the standard in lenses. The closest I come are the Zeiss Otus lenses, (and the Zeiss 135mm) which I consider an Otus.
       
      With the above in mind, let’s look at the main Printing Nikkors (95mm, 105mm, and 150mm) and see what their field of view IS like. Forget about macro range and above. These lenses can go there, but I don’t. Someone else can check that out.
       
      The 95mm PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/3x~1/1.5x, while the 105mm PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/1.5x~1.5x, and the 150 PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/x. Other than there, we are going outside their optimum qualities at our own risk IQ-wise.
      Since I don’t usually do macro, but rather close-up photography, that tells me that the PC 95 is going to be the most useful (all around) for me. It does not mean that the others (or the 95mm) don’t go higher in f/stops, but that they don’t go higher at their sharpest. 
       
      What’s the point of having a $3K lens if I am not going to be able to shoot at the range I want to shoot at and get top IQ? Unless I want to stack focus, I am kind of limited to “arty” photos, ones with just a hint of field depth. It’s nice, but for only once in a while.
       
      The 95mm PN can be used mounted directly to my Nikon D850, provided that camera is mounted on a focus fail. I could also add a very small helicoid to the lens, but the moment I do that I immediately lose some of what I most need, range. This lens is designed for something like 1:2 magnification. I find the 95mm very sharp, easy to use, and probably gives me the best bang for the buck, so to speak.
       
      The PN 95mm has 45mm outer threads. The lens mount M45 x 0.75 and there are 12 blades.
       
      The 105mm PN pretty much has to be on a bellows or view camera and, even then, the range is limited to about one view and (for my work) that is not even at its sharpest.
       
      The PN 105mm has 43mm filter threads and the lens mount is M45 x 0.75. There are 12 blades.
       
      There are two PN 150s (actually three), but the one not mentioned here follows the lead of the PN 150, 2nd version, and I don’t have it.
       
      The 150mm PNs are advertised for 1X magnification range, but it will work wider, but of course at a loss in IQ I would imagine.
       
      The PN 150mm (first version) has front and rear threads of 62mm. I’m not an expert, but this earlier version of the 150mm has an additional ring that compensates for the magnification, insuring sharper images over a wider range of magnification. This is perhaps what makes this version the most useful to me. It actually works and is kind of amazing to watch. You just dial it in and it is sharper.
       
      And the PN 150 (version 2) has a filter thread of 58mm and 12 blades. It can’t go much above f/4.5 and not lose quality. It does not have the extra ring to compensate for magnification.
      As far as mounting the Printing Nikkors to the Nikon-F mount, it is not difficult, but you do have to match up adapters. I have enough laying around here to mix and match until they all are ready to go. 
       
      I post here two stacked photos for each of the four Printing Nikkors I have. These photos give you a rough idea of the kind of reproduction-ratio that I can get with these lenses. I am sure if you want to go 1:1 and above, you would with some get better results. However, I do the best I can with what I have.
      Below are shown two sets of four images, the first four are simple stacks of 2 layers, one each focused around the center of each flower. This lets you see each lens with little stacking.
      The second four images are all stacked liberally. They will show you what a stacked image looks like with each lens.
       
      I’m not sure what you will get out of these, but you can take a look. Meanwhile, I continue checking out these interesting (to me) lenses, the Printing Nikkors.
       




       
       
       
       




    • Michael Erlewine
      By Michael Erlewine
      I’m sure this will interest few, but any is better than none. If we are looking into apochromatic (APO) lenses, then the Printing Nikkors can’t be avoided as candidates because they were designed to copy motion-picture film at the highest resolutions. To do this, they had to be highly corrected or our movies would all be fringe-tainted. We can’t have that.
       
      These are largish, somewhat heavy (the 150mm), lenses that require special mounts, which are not too hard to find. Yes, these lenses are a pain in many ways, but they produce great photos, some of the best if you are looking for lenses that have really been corrected. The term APO is not a standard and has been used to label lenses that are hardly apochromatic, but the Printing Nikkors are highly corrected and they are expensive too!
       
      One problem with obtaining the Printing Nikkors is their prices, which have been coming down as film companies abandon them in favor of all-digital projection. Still, they are said to have originally cost something like $12,000 apiece, so I have been told. Today, they sell on Ebay for much less, but still enough for my pocketbook. Anyway, we might want to know which of the Printing Nikkors (there are at least five varieties) does the most for us, so to speak, if we only buy one.

      Thanks to the website CoinImaging.com, the coin-photo folks have been kind enough to compare some of these lenses and graph out the results. What I present here are some of those graphs and results, for which I thank them very much! I failed to find the name of whoever is doing all this testing, but I thank him or her. This site uses IMATEST to test out lenses, which gives us a base.
       
      I am not going to spend time here on the history of the Printing Nikkors or their resale value, etc. You can find that on the web, if you look hard. The point of this article is to drill down on which of these lenses does what and the enclosed graphs will very much help with that. If you don’t like reading graphs, here is a shortcut to the best of the points, but you really have to study the graphs. This is just the tip of the top, so to speak, a generalization.
       
      Compared here are:
       
      Printing Nikkor 95mm f/2.8
      Printing Nikkor 105mm f/2.8
      Printing Nikkor 150mm f/2.8 (150-1)
      Printing Nikkor 150mm f/2.8 (150-2) [later]
       
      [There is a 75mm Printing Nikkor, but I have never seen one, even for sale. And there is a 3rd version of the Printing Nikkor 150mm, but I don’t have one, but it is a later version and I am told is similar to the later version of the 150mm, titled here “150mm-2.”
       
      QUICK RESULTS
       
      Chromatic Aberration vs. Aperture
      Note: All good, minimal, aberration, but the 95mm PN is best.
       
      Chromatic Aberration vs. Magnification
      Note: 95mm best at 0.5, 105mm best at 0.75-1.50
      150-1 not so good.
       
      Corner Resolution vs. Aperture
      Note: All very good, but 95mm is outstanding.
       
      Corner Resolution vs. Magnification
      All fairly good, but the 95mm is outstanding at about 0.50
       
      Corner Sharpness vs. Aperture
      Note: All very good, but the 105 is best.
       
      Corner Sharpness vs. Magnification
      Note: The 95mm best at 0.50, but the 105mm best at around 1.0 to 1.25.
       
      Resolving Power vs. Magnification
      Note: The 150-2 mm is way better than the rest at 0.50.
       
      Resolution vs. Aperture
      Note: All good, but the 95mm is best.
       
      Resolution vs. Effective Aperture
      Note: The 150-1 is the best at f/5 to f/8. Rest also very good, with the 150-2mm only good at around f/5.6.
       
      Resolution vs. Magnification
      Note: All pretty good, but the 150-1mm is the best of the lot from 0.50 to beyond 1.5.
       
      Sharpness vs. Aperture
      Note: The 95mm is hands-down the best. All pretty good, with the 105mm the worst.
       
      Sharpness vs. Effective Aperture
      Note: All good within a particular range, with the 150-1mm the best of the lot from f/5 to f/8.
       
      Sharpness vs. Magnification
      Note: All good within their best range, but the 150-1mm the best of the lot from 0.50 through 1.25.
       
      Working Distance and Magnification
      Note: The 150.1 is the best of the lot.
       
      TOTALS of “Bests”
       
      095mm = 7
      150-1mm = 5
      105mm = 3
      150-2= 1
       
      What this says is the 95mm is the best as an “all-around” lens, followed by the 150-1mm. Of course, this could depend on what you are doing. For example, the 150-1mm is best for close-up work, but the 150-2 is best for macro, etc.
       
      I hope this interests at least one other person! LOL.



    • Michael Erlewine
      By Michael Erlewine
      The Printing Nikkors for Close-Up Work
      Since the term apochromatic has no standard definition, various ideas of what is apochromatic exist. Finding apochromatic (APO) lenses that are really outstanding is difficult. By now, most of us know that the three new Zeiss APO lenses (135mm, 55mm, 85mm) are corrected apochromatically to a high standard, but finding lenses of similar quality (as to APO) is difficult without delving into the various industrial lenses, lenses designed for enlarger work or for various film-scanning operations.
      One good set of APO lenses are what are called the “Printing Nikkors,” a series of four Nikon industrial lenses designed for or use in film transfer (copy) machines, making accurate copies of 35mm cinema films and the like. These machines cost upward of $100,000, and the lenses individually cost (I am told) some $12,000 each. They are very highly corrected. To achieve this, chromatic aberration is corrected not only for the red, green, and blue range of the visible spectrum, but for the entire wavelength range (400 ~ 800nm).
      These four Printing Nikkors were each designed for a particular usable magnification range. Of the four Printing Nikkors (75mm, 95mm, 105mm, and 150mm), I have managed to find three of them, being the 95mm, 105mm, and 150mm. Here is a list along with what reproduction range they were designed for, and the general range suggested for use.
      75mm = 1/4x (usable 1/6X ~ 1/3X)
      95mm = 1/5x (usable 1/3X ~ 1/1/5X)
      105mm = 1x (usable 1/1.5X ~ 1.5X)
      150mm = 1x (usable 1/4X ~4X)
      I don’t use the Printing Nikkors for macro or higher magnifications, but primarily for close-up photography. This particular Printing Nikkor, the 150mm is of no use to me mounted directly on my Nikon D810 camera. Rather, it needs a bellows, and I generally use the Nikkor PB-4 for that. Since I mostly use this particular lens for focus stacking, the bellows works well for the close-up range.
      As a quick sidebar, to take advantage of the available focus-stacking software (I use Zerene Stacker), there are three main ways to stack focus and they produce different results, so it is important to use the most efficient method if you can. I give them here, starting with the best solution on down to the least efficient. The ranking is in terms of avoiding unwanted artifacts in your resulting stacked images:
      (1) The best way to stack is on a bellows, by fixing (locking) the lens to the front standard (so it does not move), and then focus with the rear standard on which sits the camera body (and sensor). So, we fix the lens, and only move the camera to focus.
      (2) The second best way to stack photos (and easiest) is by turning the focus barrel of the lens itself. This is why it can be important to purchase a lens with the longest focus throw you can get. For example, the famous Coastal Optics 60mm APO f/4 forensic lens (which is highly corrected) only has a focus throw of about 210-degrees, way too small (IMO) for stacking photos. You really have to use it mounted on a camera, mounted on a focus rail, and that is not good. On the other hand, the legendary Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar Macro lens has a focus through of some 610-degrees. What a difference!
      (3) And lastly (and worst-ly) is to mount the camera-body and lens on a focus rail and move the whole combination to focus. This is not recommended, but I still have to often revert to it.
      (4) And there is the concern that spherical objects are the hardest to stack because you must take even smaller incremental layers with spheres, since there is no flat surface. To capture a sphere without artifacts takes some very fine increment-steps to stack properly.
      The above choices (themselves) each involve problems of their own, of course. Not all lenses will work well on a bellows, not all lenses have a decent focus throw, and the third option of using a focus rail should be avoided, if possible. These three options were first explained to me by Rik Littlefield, the author of Zerene Stacker, the focus-stacking software that I find to be the best for my work.
      I must say that my choice of flowers here is not ideal. In my experience the color yellow (and red, for that matter) are not as easy to capture correctly compared to the greens and blues. But this is what I have in the studio, so I am using it.
      Here are three different images, the first two images are stacked images shot with the Printing Nikkor 150mm wide open (f/2.8), and one at its narrowest aperture (f/11). The third image is a non-stacked traditional one-shot photo at f/11. My thoughts?
      My first thought is that I have to learn to better master the color yellow. Second, I feel this lens is very unforgiving, perhaps even a little aggressive or “forensic,” as in: what you see is what you get. And thirdly, I continue to wrestle with the question of to-stack-or-not-to-stack at all.
      The traditional one-shot photo is not bad. Why bother to stack, when stacking means artifacts of one kind or another (visible or not to the average viewer) will be present?
      It seems to me that the three new Zeiss APOs are not, well, so “forensic,” and have a softer feel to them. The bottom line is that I have to learn to better use the Printing Nikkors or….. just stick with the Zeiss APOs.
      Now, the industrial enlarger-lens, the El Nikkor APO 105mm, does not seem to have a “forensic” look. This is not to mention that maneuvering a large lens like the Printing Nikkor 150mm, mounted on a bellows, mounted on a quick-release clamp, in the field is no easy trick.




      View full article
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.